Experience is Overrated

That tenure prompted both Clinton and Edwards to support the war in Iraq, along with virtually the entire Democratic foreign policy elite. They had years of PhDs, postings abroad and negotiations with dictators (the kind bemoaned by Clinton and embraced by Obama in last night's YouTube debate) under their belt. And they came down on the wrong side of the biggest foreign policy question of their generation.

So it's a little disturbing to see Clinton surrogates like former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright giving reporters a tutorial today on how to negotiate with hostile regimes. In a follow-up interview with a newspaper in Iowa, Hillary piled on by calling Obama's comments "irresponsible and frankly naive."

Let's step back a second. The Obama camp could argue that it was "irresponsible and frankly naive" for Senator Clinton to hand President Bush a blank-check to go to war and then claim that she was only giving the Administration the authorization to win over the United Nations and keep weapons inspectors in Iraq until they finished the job. It was painfully obvious, except maybe to Senators and their advisors in Washington, that Bush would use Congressional approval as a mandate to invade.

Hillary's evolution on the war appears to some as more motivated by calculation than conviction. She supported the war for the better part of four years, began to express a few qualified misgivings and then, once she entered the presidential ring, quickly introduced a withdrawal proposal and a plan to de-authorize the war.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070724/cm_thenation/45217218

He was naive in his response last night. She was naive in her IWR vote.

"Direct Negotiations (with enemy states) are not a sign of weakness; they are a sign of leadership." "The Bush Administration's refusal to talk to anyone on the evil side, as some have called idealistic, I call it dangerously unrealistic." --Hillary Clinton, October 31, 2006 at the Council of Foreign Relations

They do agree on that, as do most Democrats, as do I, and nobody is naive for that. However, that wasn't the question asked last night. The critical phrase was "without preconditions" and Obama needed to pick up on that and he didn't.

It makes Hillary like a hypocrite to criticize Obama for saying what she told her supporters earlier. Doubly so for trying to make an issue of this by calling Obama naive. If Obama is naive, so is she for having said the same thing earlier.

But then, "the Clintons lie with such ease."

They agree on that as do most, maybe all, Democrats.

Hillary called him naive. Plus Hillary ignored the fact that Chavez is not a dictator, but a democratically elected President, unlike Buhs. Hillary also ignored that Cuba has suffered under the US embargo and US-sponsored terrorist attacks.

Hillary panders to the Miami gusanos, who are anti-Semites and want to impose an Opus Dei theocracy in Cuba!

Obama should focus on her war vote. He wins that one hands down.

We will see what they have to say about the Yahoo piece it will be interesting. Along with other websites posting her Flip Flop she will have to answer the questions.

She never should have voted in favor, but I don't think she was being naive ~ just political. (No excuse, in my book.)

Question: Which candidate said this?

Democrats say that and mean it.

And then Obama said essentially the same thing.

Yet Obama is the one who is niave.

the road. However, she is beginning to show she really does not have it together. She does fine with talking points. However, last night's debate did not allow her to have her talking points together ahead of time. Therefore she was not as polish.

...are calculating ~ but that's how campaigns are won these days.

and lots of experience sucking up to the Israel Lobby and in backstabbing Palestinians. She is a gem of experience alright!

I don't think we'd be in this godawful mess, hated and targeted by terrorists, if our policies regarding the Middle East had been fair.

rather than Jimmy Carter's groundbreaking ME policies.

Hillary will cater to the Israel Lobby, instead of trying to play an honest broker like Carter did.

I have such great respect for him as a person, and also for his intellect.

and we sorely need someone like him in the State Department.

I am by no means defending Edwards or Clinton's votes, but Obama was a state legislator for chrissakes. What did anyone really care about his opinion? It was a much a political calculation E and C's votes. If it wasn't for a fortuitous abuse/sex scandal, he likely would not be in the Senate right now and certainly wouldn't be running for president - he beat Alan Keyes for crying out loud! My Schnauzer could beat Alan Keyes in an election for city dog catcher.

That's a pretty harsh claim, considering you have nothing to back it up, other than what you think.

He was the only candidate opposing the war at a time when it was quite unpopular to do so. So of course he had something to lose.

Sheesh!

Hell if they felt they were right to make that decision which cost thousand of soldiers lives. Do we want them to run this country? They should have thought long and hard about what they were giving the President the authorization to do. Also, they should have read the memo.